G.R. No. L-6044 November 24, 1952
FORTUNATA VDA. DE RODRIGUEZ, BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ, MERCEDES RODRIGUEZ DE HALLARE, LUZ RODRIGUEZ DE CARLOS AND ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, petitioners, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and ABELARDO RODRIGUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Flaviano Rodriguez died on February 8, 1944, leaving an estate valued at P10,000. His surviving heirs are his widow, Fortunata Vda. de Rodriguez, and six children, who are the petitioners and respondent Abelardo Rodriguez. All heirs, being of age, entered into a verbal agreement not to liquidate the estate but to place it under the administration of the widow, with each child entitled to an equal share of the annual income for their family needs, provided it did not exceed their rightful participation. On March 19, 1952, eight years after the death, respondent Abelardo Rodriguez filed a petition for administration of the intestate estate. The other heirs (petitioners) objected on June 2, 1952, invoking the rule that if an estate is free from obligations and all heirs are of age, no administration proceedings shall be allowed. On August 11, 1952, respondent Judge overruled the opposition and appointed Abelardo Rodriguez as administrator upon filing a P2,000 bond. Respondents admitted the verbal agreement but contended it was not carried out, as Benjamin Rodriguez (a petitioner) took over administration and refused to give Abelardo his share of the income, necessitating the intestate proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted properly in maintaining the administration proceedings and appointing Abelardo Rodriguez as administrator, notwithstanding that the estate has no debts and all heirs are of age.

RULING

Yes. While Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court provides that if a decedent left no debts and the heirs are all of age, they may divide the estate extrajudicially or resort to an ordinary action for partition, this provision is not mandatory. The use of the word “may” indicates it is discretionary and does not preclude the heirs from instituting administration proceedings if they have good reasons, such as disagreement, and do not wish to resort to an ordinary partition action. The Court cited Orozco vs. Garcia, which held that nothing in the law prohibits heirs from instituting special proceedings for administration if they cannot agree on extrajudicial partition. Furthermore, the petitioners’ claim that they were not given an opportunity to be heard on the appointment of the administrator is without basis, as both parties submitted their preferred candidates and the court weighed their qualifications before appointing Abelardo Rodriguez, who is qualified and one of the heirs. The petition for certiorari was dismissed, and the preliminary injunction dissolved.